14 May 2026
The immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, considered prior findings and the new material, and lawfully concluded there was no significant change and no realistic prospect of success; the decision was procedurally fair and not irrational, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
14 Apr 2026
Leave was refused because the immigration officer and Director correctly applied the law governing subsequent non-refoulement claims, identified the issues, afforded procedural fairness, and reasonably concluded there was no significant change of circumstances or credible new evidence that together with earlier materials would give the intended subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated.
14 Apr 2026
Under section 37ZO the applicant was required to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and that, together with prior materials, the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; he failed to do so and only repeated prior allegations without particulars, and the Director's assessment that state protection and internal relocation negated the risk was not legally flawed or procedurally unfair; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.
14 Apr 2026
The immigration officer correctly applied s37ZO, properly considered prior findings on state protection and internal relocation, fairly assessed the applicant's asserted new events on the basis of her account and materials, and reasonably concluded the changes were not significant and did not give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so leave to apply for judicial review must be refused.
10 Apr 2026
The Judge's Order was set aside because he overlooked that the 1st Applicant had made a subsequent non-refoulement claim dismissed by the Director and the Board; therefore both Applicants' leave applications must be remitted to the Court of First Instance to be determined by a different judge; no order as to costs.
1 Apr 2026
The appeal fails because the applicant offered only bare assertions and did not identify any legal error in the judge's refusal of leave; the judge correctly dismissed the out-of-time application for unexplained delay and properly concluded the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's and Director's credibility findings and absence of material error.
27 Mar 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, properly accepted and analyzed the applicant's asserted facts, reasonably concluded there was no significant change and no realistic prospect of success, observed requisite fairness, and the decision was not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable.
3 Mar 2026
The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave or in the Director's decision; the Director adequately considered the evidence and made permissible factual findings which the judge properly upheld, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
10 Feb 2026
The Judge erred by failing to consider the applicant's intended challenge to the Director's Subsequent Claim Decision dated 28 June 2021; accordingly the order refusing leave was set aside and the matter remitted to the Court of First Instance for fresh determination to consider that challenge together with the related application in HCAL 145/2026.
15 Jan 2026
The court allowed late filing for the amended leave application but refused substantive leave because the immigration officer properly applied s37ZO and made permissible findings of fact on credibility, state protection and internal relocation; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.